1. 3o Years of English Language Teaching - Past, Present, and Your Future Paul Kawachi paul.kawachi@crtvu.edu.cn CCRTVU Wuhan, 16 May 2009

2. 1979 ~ 2009 : - behaviourism - cognitivism - cognitive constructivism - social constructivism - radical constructivism - constructionism - social constructionism overview

3. behaviourism : Teacher-centred Teacher gives stimulus Student response is assessed Teacher adapts stimulus, and re-tests There are two types ; - - intrinsic - extrinsic

4. cognitivism : Teacher-sequenced inputs, Response process (not product) is assessed Connections between parts – rather than whole Teacher asks students to identify similarities or differences

5. cognitive constructivism : Students are pre-tested to be put into streams Teacher says the connections to be made between new information input and past prior knowledge Open-ended questions to large classes or multiple-choice to individuals

6. social constructivism : Pre-task awareness-raising, check there is adequate knowledge or teacher as moderator – so then cooperative Groups discuss concepts, ideas, not facts Parts must be understood only in terms of the whole

7. radical constructivism : Student-centred Each builds up own unique map of the world Student’s mind changes to fit with experience The outside world imposes constraints but mind acts within these constraints Assess by problem-solving

8. constructionism : Learning alone independently Knowledge is in the ethereal interactions not constructivist in the world and not cognitivist in the individual mind Learning occurs through interacting with own imaginative projectionS

9. social constructionism : Student learns through reflecting on own interactions with others not from own experience, and not from other ideas Diversity helps by enriching interactivity Context-based ( not teacher- not student-based )

10. low … prior knowledge … high low … task complexity … high - - - b e h a v i o u r i s m - - - - - - - - - c o g n i t i v i s m - - - - - - c o n s t r u c t i v i s m - - -

11. An online community of students studying together is often recommended. Why ? First, let’s talk about the goals of education and then we can see the role for social interactions online

12. Over all published reports, we can find there are 5 Domains of Learning : These 5 Domains or areas are : - Cognitive knowledge and skills - Affective interest and love - Metacognitive satisfaction - Environment social aspects - Management coping with massive info

13. Following from Bloom’s Taxonomy, there are now 5 goals of education covering each of the 5 Domains : - Cognitive - Affective - Metacognitive - Environment - Management Let’s look at each of these, in turn...

14. - Cognitive knowledge and skills This teaching and learning objective involves increasing the student’s competence and proficiency

15. - Affective interest and love This teaching and learning objective involves initiating and developing the motivations to learn

16. - Metacognitive satisfaction This teaching and learning objective involves reflecting and self-awareness of achievements

17. - Environmental social aspects This teaching and learning objective involves building awareness, deploying a responsive team-spirit and fostering a learning community

18. - Management coping with massive info This teaching and learning objective involves the massive amounts of data now available ; determining the utility, the validities and the reliabilities of information, mastering necessary literacies including search, designing own learning, and designing research

19. From these, you can see why some teachers have looked at student satisfaction, or at building an online social community - Cognitive knowledge and skills - Affective interest and love - Metacognitive satisfaction - Environment social aspects - Management coping with massive info

20. From these, you can see why some teachers have looked at student satisfaction, or at building an online social community However, we should not think that short-term social interactions and satisfaction can replace the need to acquire knowledge and critical thinking skills for lifelong learning

21. Now let’s look at Learning Models : Then we can see how a framework or scaffold can be used in practice to reason which kinds interactions - cooperative or collaborative - are needed, and timing for each kind

22. Dewey 1933 model : 1 imaginative suggestion of problem or solution 2 framing of perplexity and of the difficulty of the problem 3 use one suggestion after another to guide observation 4 Mental elaboration of an idea or supposition 5 testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action

23. Brookfield 1987 model : 1 a triggering event 2 an appraisal of the situation 3 an exploration to explain anomalies or discrepancies 4 developing alternative perspectives 5 Integration of alternatives in ways of thinking or living

24. Anderson 2007 model : 1 triggering event, recognizing problem or puzzlement 2 exploration, information exchange, brainstorming 3 integration, synthesis 4 resolution, apply, test, defend

25. Other models : - Laurillard 1995 Conversation Model - Grabinger & Dunlap 1995 Intentional Learning Model - Dopper & Dijkman 1997 Action Learning Model - Kearsley & Schneiderman 1998 Engagement Model - Sfard 1998 Participation-Orientation Model - Kawachi 2003 Transactional Distance Model only Kawachi identifies and distinguishes cooperative and collaborative

26. What is the difference between cooperative and collaborative learning ?

27. What is the difference between cooperative and collaborative learning ? Cooperative involves recycling old knowledge Collaborative involves creating new knowledge

28. There are four distinct ways of learning Learning-Alone Learning-in-a-Group I NDEPENDENT Freedom over content and method of learning I NDIVIDUAL No Freedom over content or method of learning or pre-negotiated freedom I NTERPERSONAL C OOPERATIVE C OLLABORATIVE C ONNECTED L EARNING Group with a ‘ knower ’ Group with no ‘ knower ’

29. 1 23 4 56 Affirm Elicit Opinion Request understanding Counter- opinion Confirm collaborative interactions in practice

30. Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi 2003 This Model recognizes that learning starts from what someone already knows through cooperative sharing, and proceeds through collaborative reflection about new not-yet-learnt information

31. Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi 2003 1 elicit needs, sharing, brainstorming 2 rationalizing, theorizing, justifying 3 consider all possible alternatives, disjunctive thinking 4 test out new way, experiential, publish

32. decreasing Transactional Distance 1 S- D- 2 S+ D- 3 S+ D+ 4 S- D+ Cooperative sharing old Collaborative creative Collaborative disjunctive Cooperative experiential

33. Here we use the letters S and D to refer to : S Structure : the educative structure imposed by the teacher, textbook or institution D Dialogue : the educative guiding conversation ( not idle or social chat )

34. decreasing Transactional Distance 1 S- D- 2 S+ D- 3 S+ D+ 4 S- D+ Cooperative sharing old Collaborative creative Collaborative disjunctive Cooperative experiential

35. Stage 1 Cooperative Stage 2 Collaborative Stage 4 Cooperative Stage 3 Collaborative

36. Stage 1 is characterized by cooperative sharing of prior old knowledge and prior experience, eliciting views, brainstorming and divergent thinking to gather various different frames of context

37. Stage 2 is characterized by collaborative creation and discovery of new theory rationalizing and underlying prior knowledge, developing metaphors, horizontal and lateral thinking

38. Stage 3 is characterized by collaborative testing out of hypotheses to co-discover some new potential knowledge, problem solving, vertical and disjunctive thinking

39. Stage 4 is characterized by cooperative presenting new idea in real-life, experiential, personal meaning-making, social-constructivist, dissemination, reflecting, judging, publishing

40. decreasing Transactional Distance 1 S- D- 2 S+ D- 3 S+ D+ 4 S- D+ Cooperative sharing old Collaborative creative Collaborative disjunctive Cooperative experiential

41. Now the main points in this Transactional Distance Model : are that initially the student chats, ( not educatively, so here D- and without teaching tasks S- ) to share own background, to reduce anxiety, and to become comfortable and able then to engage S+ reasoning

42. Now the main points in this Transactional Distance Model : then the student explains to others and must engage S+ reasoning At this Stage 2, social interactions may be fun or desirable but is no longer needed

43. Now the main points in this Transactional Distance Model : then the teacher engages ( D+ ) and raises alternatives to be explored ( S+ ), and finally the student tries out a new idea in her own context ( S- ) with teaching guidance and assessment ( D+ )

44. This Transactional Distance Model succeeds through bringing the student from not knowing ( greatest Transactional Distance ) to knowing something ( zero Transactional Distance )

45. Learning Transaction = requires 4 interactions 1 student’s prior knowledge and need are identified 2 the text or teacher gives an amount of information 3 the student outputs an own construction 4 the teacher or society confirms the meaning Three encounters / passes are needed to ‘learn’

46. decreasing Transactional Distance 1 S- D- 2 S+ D- 3 S+ D+ 4 S- D+ Cooperative sharing old Collaborative creative Collaborative disjunctive Cooperative experiential

47. Four Categories in Transactional Distance Theory less Transactional Distance 1 S- D- 2 S+ D- 3 S+ D+ 4 S- D+ added Structure added Dialogue

48. Now we have the scaffold or framework consisting of the four distinct Stages on which to put the essential kinds of interactions that we need to bring about learning, through reducing the Transactional Distance

49. Difficulties are reported in achieving Stage 3 Renner 1976 found only 81% of final-year law students in 2 law schools reached Stage 3 Piaget 1977 acknowledged many people never reached Formal Operations level Stage 3 even in adulthood McKinnon 1976 found only 50% of college students at 7 colleges could reach Stage 3 Gunawardena 1997 and 2001 found in graduate students and teachers that the Stage 3 “collaboration simply did not happen” Meyer 2003 found only 29% of graduate students reached Stage 3 and Anderson 2007 only 13% of two graduate courses

50. How do other theories such as constructivism fit with this Transactional Distance Model ? Most theories each have their own special practice Behaviorism, and objectivism each suits the cooperative Stage 1 plus Stage 4 While cognitive constructivism suits Stage 2 and social constructivism suits Stage 3 Overall, constructionism suits the whole Model involving all four stages in sequence

51. Let’s open up these points a little... Stage 1 T input : behaviourism Stage 4 T-moderated output : behaviourism Stage 1 + Stage 4 : behaviourism Stage 2 Ss told connections : cognitivism Stage 3 Ss discuss connections : constructivism T or S knows : cooperative so we lack collaborative – critical thinking skills so adopt constructionism

52. in constructionism... Learning is wholly within the student’s mind through interactions ( as in Conversation Model ) diversity helps to achieve collaborative Stage 3 so adopt Transactional Distance Model

53. Stage 1 Cooperative Stage 2 Collaborative Stage 4 Cooperative Stage 3 Collaborative

54. The Transactional Distance Model is perfectly suited to early school education The initial stage involves cooperative sharing... This can be from the student herself ( best ) or from other students ( suits large classes ) or any source ( teacher, textbook or internet ) Younger children might prefer doing some activities to generate own ideas to share with others

55. 1 Each student first expresses her own ideas or own findings or experience 2 The teacher then asks students to express why they feel or think like they do 3 and then raises other new alternatives using a textbook or the internet 4 for the students to take away and try out themselves

56. The Transactional Distance Model : Kawachi underpinned by the widely accepted - Conversation Theory : Holmberg 1983, Grogono 1993, Laurillard 2002 - Transactional Distance Theory : Peters 1973, Moore 1993 - Constructionism Theory : Papert 1991, Gergen 2001

57. Conversation Theory : Mitchell & Grogono 1993 - postulates that learning occurs through guiding transactions between a desirable target concept map model of knowledge and a student’s externalized model of prior understanding. - Such transactions include asking the student to articulate and make explicit own elaborations

58. Conversation Model : learning transactions include appropriation - whereby the teacher or a good student picks up points from weaker students and shows how they can fit into a larger picture, to model greater understanding for the weaker students to then see elaboration - whereby conflicts, slight differences or diverging views are verbalized, and so lead to learning justification - whereby thought processes and strategic knowledge initially implicit are made explicit through verbalization to help both the enquirer and the justifier to learn

59. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ : Ablex. Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. Distance education : International perspectives, (pp. 114-122). London : Croom Helm. Gergen K.J., & Wortham, S. (2001). Social construction and pedagogical practice. In K.J. Gergen (Ed.), Social construction in context, (pp. 115-136). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching : A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London : RoutledgeFalmer. Mitchell, P.D., & Grogono, P.D. (1993). Modelling techniques for tutoring systems. Computers & Education, 20 (1), 55-61. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed), Theoretical principles of distance education, (pp. 22-38). London : Routledge. These plus my own Kawachi 1999 – 2009 published works available from me by email

60. 1979 ~ 2009 : - behaviourism for teacher-based, and skills - cognitivism for sequential teaching - cognitive constructivism within inside - social constructivism from outside - radical constructivism for student-centred - constructionism for e-learning - social constructionism for modern distance education summary

61. 2009 ~ 2039 : - Student-created content shared in learner’s own languages - Continuous scaffolds for task, group size, mode, media - Externalise examinations away from universities - Share courses, increase diversity vision

62. Teachers accept a model depending on : - own early school experience - loyalties during own teacher-training - support from professional networks hopefully we have all of these ! reflection

63. You can download these slides freely from http://www.open-ed.net/overview.ppt or by email from me at paul.kawachi@crtvu.edu.cn